2015 - October 5Planning Commission
October 5, 2015
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
October 5, 2015
Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits
ABSENT: Commissioner Correa
STAFF
PRESENT: Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Jennifer Le, Acting Principal Planner
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner — Historic Preservation
Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
REGULAR SESSION
1.1 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gladson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Willits led the flag salute.
1.3 ROLL CALL: Commissioner Correa was absent. All other Commissioners were present.
1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None
1.5 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None
1.6 PLANNING MANAGER REPORTS Ms. Roseberry reminded the Commission
about the Planning Officials Forum being held on October 22, 2015.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR:
2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2015
Motion was made to approve the minutes as written:
MOTION:
Commissioner Glasgow
SECOND:
Commissioner Simpson
AYES:
Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Correa
MOTION CARRIED.
1
Planning Commission October 5, 2015
2.2 ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 28 -15
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY TENTATIVE TRACT
0036 -15 (17645) FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES ON A
TRIANGULARLY- SHAPED PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF THE
SOUTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF WASHINGTON AVENUE AND HAMLIN
STREET.
John Reekstin, the applicant from The Olson Company, explained how they had met
with the neighbors who wanted a community that was consistent with the existing
zoning and their proposed development was in conformance with the zoning. He
explained the reason they had for processing the tentative tract map on its own. He was
asking for approval of the tentative tract map rather than the resolution of denial and
explained the reasons for this request.
MOTION:
Commissioner Gladson
SECOND:
Commissioner Willits
AYES:
Commissioners Gladson and Willits
NOES:
Commissioner Glasgow
ABSENT:
Commissioner Correa
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner Simpson
MOTION CARRIED.
2
Planning Commission
October 5, 2015
3. CONTINUED HEARING:
3.1 ZONE CHANGE 1274 -14; MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 0778 -14; TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 17758; DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4749 -14 &
ENVIRONMENTAL NO. 1837 -14 — ORANGE -OLIVE RESIDENTIAL (MBK
HOMES)
Item continued from the September 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. The
applicant is requesting approvals to develop a 2.33 -acre site (currently used for
recreational vehicle storage) with 25 detached single family residential condominium
units.
LOCATION: 2025 N. ORANGE -OLIVE ROAD
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 31 -15 recommending to
the City Council of the City of Orange their adoption of Mitigated
Negative Declaration 1837 -14 including adoption of a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program; approval of Zone Change
1274 -14, a request to approve a zone change from Limited
Business (C -1) to Residential Multi - Family Specific Plan [R -3
(SP)] and approval of the associated Orange -Olive Residential
Specific Plan; and approval of Tentative Tract Map 17758 (TTM
0033 -14), Major Site Plan Review 0778 -14 and Design Review
Committee 4749 -14.
Discussion: Jennifer Le, Acting Principal Planner, presented a project overview
consistent with the staff report. She explained that the feedback from the public over the
years concerned parking and privacy issues. Those issues have been addressed by staff.
Sunti Kumjim, applicant, narrated a PowerPoint presentation. He gave an overview of
active MBK developments in the area and the current condition of this project site. He
explained that the initial feedback from staff and the community was they did not like
the density, the height related to the privacy issues, and insufficient parking. The
applicant has now reduced the density, and addressed the privacy and parking concerns.
The Commission had questions for the applicant asking who was responsible for
regulating the on -site parking and would there be signage in the common areas; what
would be the parking impacts for the construction workers; if the City owned trees
would be replaced; would parking tags be required; how would oversized vehicles be
handled; and what was the lighting plan for the project.
Public Hearing was opened.
Carol Grunpensperg_er address on file, had two areas of concern which were overflow
parking in the surrounding neighborhood, and the proposed setback requirement between
3
Planning Commission
October 5, 2015
the R -1 and R -3 zones. She was requesting the applicant put up some type of tree
screening along the R -1 and R -3 border.
Eric Jacobson address on file, also wanted the screening of the trees and to ensure those
trees would be maintained.
Public Hearing was closed.
Mr. Kumjim returned to address the concerns voiced by the public. He explained that
the CC &Rs would stipulate that garages would be used for parking only. He also stated
they looked at the tree screening suggestion but it appeared their mitigation measures
had met all their concerns.
Ms. Le addressed the issue of the waiver of the code and the height standards of this site
specific development's Orange -Olive Residential Specific Plan.
The Commission made additional comments in which they felt the project was a good fit
for the neighborhood; suggested using podocarpus for the screening between the two
zones; liked the architecture; it would increase the property value; understood the public
concern with the screening; were concerned with how the backyard landscaping would
be controlled; liked it was reduced to two - stories; and were concerned that the
Association could modify Condition 7.
Ms. Le explained that the applicant has given a conceptual landscape plan and the
Design Review Committee has asked that the landscape plan come back to them prior to
issuance of building permits. They did not address the screening on along the eastern
edge of the property and the Commission could make a condition or recommendation to
the City Council. Commissioner Gladson would like that screening detail be considered
by the Design Review Committee.
Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 31 -15 recommending
to the City Council of the City of Orange their adoption of Mitigated Negative
Declaration 1837 -14 including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program; approval of Zone Change 1274 -14, a request to approve a zone change
from Limited Business (C -1) to Residential Multi- Family Specific Plan [R -3 (SP)]
and approval of the associated Orange -Olive Residential Specific Plan; and
approval of Tentative Tract Map 17758 (TTM 0033 -14), Major Site Plan Review
0778 -14 and Design Review Committee 4749 -14 with one additional condition:
1. Look at additional screening opportunities when the Design Review
Committee considers the final landscape plan.
MOTION:
Commissioner Gladson
SECOND:
Commissioner Glasgow
AYES:
Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Correa
MOTION CARRIED.
4
Planning Commission
October 5, 2015
4. NEW HEARINGS:
4.1 VARIANCE NO. 2236-15 — ORTIZ RESIDENCE
The property consists of a significant downslope from the public right -of -way, is only 40
feet wide, and has no on -site parking. As a result of the property conditions, three
Variances are proposed as follows:
1. A Variance to allow an uncovered parking pad to be maintained in a required
front yard setback.
2. A Variance to allow the retaining wall for the parking pad, plus a railing around
the parking pad to exceed a 42 inch wall height limitation in the required front
yard setback.
3. A Variance to allow an existing 51 inch high retaining wall near the property line
to have a new 42 inch high guardrail on top of it.
LOCATION: 490 S. HILL STREET
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 — New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures) because the project is for
accessory structures including a raised parking pad and low
fencing. The proposed project is also categorically exempt from
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15305 (Class 5 — Minor
Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because of the setback
Variance for the parking pad and exceedance of fence height.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 30 -15 approving three
Variances.
1. Allow an uncovered parking pad to be maintained in a
required front yard setback;
2. Allow the retaining wall for the parking pad, plus a railing
around the parking pad to exceed a 42 inch wall height
limitation in the required front yard setback; and
3. Allow an existing 51 inch high retaining wall near the front
property line to have a new 42 inch high guardrail on top of it.
Discussion: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with
the staff report. He discussed the issues concerning the parking pad, the retaining wall,
and the guardrail.
The Commission questioned staff about the existing 42" wall and whether that would
hold a guardrail; possible headlight issues; and whether other homes in the area had the
61
Planning Commission
October 5, 2015
same problem.
Mr. Ortlieb clarified that the third Variance was for parking in the front yard setback.
Public Hearing was opened.
Javier Hernandez applicant, explained that due to the size of the lot, it was very difficult
to build a garage and so they were making this request for a parking pad.
Public Hearing was closed.
The Commission asked if there was parking on just one side of the road since it was a
narrow street. They are told it was a one -way street with parking on both sides.
Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 30 -15 approving three
Variances.
1. Allow an uncovered parking pad to be maintained in a required front yard
setback;
2. Allow the retaining wall for the parking pad, plus a railing around the
parking pad to exceed a 42 inch wall height limitation in the required front
yard setback; and
3. Allow an existing 51 inch high retaining wall near the front property line to
have a new 42 inch high guardrail on top of it:
MOTION:
Commissioner Glasgow
SECOND:
Commissioner Willits
AYES:
Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Correa
MOTION CARRIED.
G
Planning Commission
October 5, 2015
4.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2976 -15 — VILLAGE AT ORANGE SIGN
PROGRAM
The applicant proposes to implement a new sign program for an existing multi- tenant and
multi- building commercial shopping center called The Village at Orange on North Tustin
Street. The new program will provide more current design standards and specifications
for signage specific to this center.
LOCATION: 1500 E. VILLAGE WAY
NOTE: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities). This
exemption applies to the project because it involves implementing
a new sign program to govern the design and installation of signs
on an existing commercial shopping center.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 33 -15 approving the
master sign program for the Village at Orange.
Discussion: Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent
with the staff report. She explained the one issue which concerned how the installation
of the new signs would take place over time.
The Commission questioned staff about the length of time the existing signs have been
on the site; the height of the pylon signs; the connection of the architectural design with
the buildings on the site; the illumination of the 30' signs at night; the line of sight of the
monument signs located at exits along Tustin Street; and how new tenants will comply
with the new sign program.
Connie O'Connor, from Sign Advantage, Inc., complimented the staff and the Design
Review Committee, who did not let the applicant get to the Planning Commission until
everything was designed to their satisfaction. She indicated there would be no flashing
or blinking lights.
Public Hearing was opened. There were no public speakers.
The Commission felt it was time for an updated sign program; and questioned the
possible problem with nesting birds.
Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 33 -15 approving
Conditional Use Permit 2976 -15 and Design Review No. 4797 -15 approving the
master sign program for the Village at Orange located at 1500 E. Village Way:
7
Planning Commission
October 5, 2015
MOTION:
Commissioner Willits
SECOND:
Commissioner Simpson
AYES:
Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Correa
MOTION CARRIED.
Planning Commission
October 5, 2015
4.3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2985-15 — WATSON'S
The applicant is requesting modification of an existing ABC Type 41 license (On -Sale
Beer and Wine — Eating Place) to a Type 47 license (On -Sale General — Eating Place) and
to expand the service area to include the adjoining tenant space and outdoor dining area at
the restaurant in the Plaza Historic District.
LOCATION: 116 -120 E. CHAPMAN AVENUE
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQS) per State
CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities) because the
project consists of licensing of alcohol sales at an existing
restaurant.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 32 -15 approving an ABC
Type 41 license at a restaurant with an outdoor dining area and
denying an ABC Type 47 license.
Discussion: Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, presented a
project overview consistent with the staff report.
Alan Haustad, General Manager for Our Family Restaurant Group, addressed who they
are and why they are requesting a liquor license. He said their concept was not just
liquor but it was more about a full service restaurant. He explained that managing a
liquor license was important and there are no alcohol related issues at their Villa Park
restaurant.
Bill Skeffington, restaurant owner, felt obtaining the Type 47 license would keep the
business going past 7:00 at night and it would remain a family - friendly restaurant.
The Commission had a concern with the soda bar being in the same location where
alcohol would be served; questioned the request to be open 24 hours the first Friday of
the month; questioned if it could be assumed that the market draw would be Chapman
students; asked how the beverages would be paired with the food; and the fact that the
Police Department was opposed to the Type 47 license and the Commission was
concerned with that.
Public Hearing was opened.
The following persons spoke in favor of the Type 47 license:
Scott Parker address on file, had been the previous owner of Watson's for 45 years and
understood the need for the Type 47 license.
9
Planning Commission
October 5, 2015
Spencer Muir address on file, stated he is a deputy sheriff with the Orange County
Sheriff's Department and has been assigned to Villa Park for the last four years. He has
seen how responsible Mr. Skeffington has been at the Rockwell's in Villa Park. He
stated they do not get a lot of service calls at Rockwell's and he has never seen an
alcohol related issue there and he did not foresee a problem at Watson's.
Tony Pacheco address on file, was the applicant's ABC consultant. He pointed out if
the CUP was approved, the existing on -sale beer and wine license would be canceled
upon the issuance of the on -sale general license and there would not be an increase in the
license count. He felt Mr. Skeffington deserved a chance to compete with other
restaurants that are similarly licensed in the area.
Don St. Jean address on file, explained he has been a resident of Orange for 29 years
and he has managed the building Watson's is located in. He said when the property was
put up for sale, they were approached by different businesses which wanted to cut the
restaurant into 2 and 3 spaces. If that happened, the Watson's name would be lost and
Mr. Skeffington is proposing to retain the name.
No one spoke in opposition to the Type 47 license.
Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Willits stated that the reports the Police Department had provided were
conclusive and he wanted to ask questions of them.
Public Hearing was reopened.
Lieutenant Dave Nichols, of the Orange Police Department, explained that the number
of part-one crimes in District 13 North were higher than other districts in Orange. They
are concerned with alcohol related crimes. The Commission asked if these crimes were
coming from the bars or the restaurants. Lt. Nichols said the eateries have a lower
incident than the bar locations.
Public Hearing was closed.
The Commission made additional comments saying it was a difficult decision since the
eateries are better at controlling the drinks when people are eating food; concerned with
how the bar would be separated from the family restaurant side to the adult beverage
side and wanted to see a separation; torn denying the request to any applicant in this area
because it should be based on survival; concerned with the tie in to the candy and liquor
concept; the line has to be drawn and it's difficult to go against the Police Department
and staff's recommendation; sensitive to the business staying competitive but concerned
with high crime in the area; and could support the Type 47 license because it does have
tight controls in place.
10
Planning Commission
October 5, 2015
Ms. Roseberry explained that if the Planning Commission does decide to approve the
request, then staff would need to return with a different resolution. She said that if the
Commission wanted a separate area for alcohol then it would be creating a bar area.
Mr. Skeffington indicated they could make it so alcohol was not served at the soda bar
and they could just serve alcohol at the tables.
Mr. Haustad explained that ABC requires different glassware for alcoholic beverages.
Ms. Moshier stated that the staff findings were based on the Police Department's
recommendations and their analysis of the Type 47 license.
Motion to direct staff to bring back a resolution to the Planning Commission to
approve the Type 47 license including the additional tenant space and the patio
area:
Chair Gladson stated the reasons for approval included the restaurant being competitive
with other restaurants in the Plaza historic district; the Police Department shared that the
majority of their research found that the crime issues were tied more to the pubs; and
being consistent with this type of environment inside the Plaza area.
MOTION:
Commissioner Glasgow
SECOND:
Commissioner Gladson
AYES:
Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, and Simpson
NOES:
Commissioner Willits
ABSENT:
Commissioner Correa
MOTION CARRIED.
II
Planning Commission
October 5, 2015
5. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, October 19,
2015.
MOTION:
Commissioner Gladson
SECOND:
Commissioner Glasgow
AYES:
Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Correa
Meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
MOTION CARRIED.
12